This thread is wild

I have a lot of experience with both sides of these arguments so here are my 2 cents.
There is no right or wrong answer to this question. I agree with others who say WordPress is a good solution for the majority of small websites. Of course it can be badly done, using a large array of plugins slows down your website. WordPress introduces security concerns not seen with a static HTML site for example. Poorly coded plugins also pose a secure risk. Those are the negatives but for every negative there's many positives.
On the flip side just because a website is bespoke does not make it more secure or better than a WordPress site. WordPress has the best developers in the world supporting it. Also by bespoke are we talking a static HTML site (non-CMS) or are we talking a custom dynamic site? There is a big difference between the two.
I have created and manage my main company website which is bespoke. If I were to create it with WordPress it would actually be more expensive as I have a lot of specific requirements and created PHP functions to make updating my site easy. WordPress would introduce a lot of unnecessary bloat that I don't need and mean I have to work around their framework to implement what I need instead of using vanilla PHP. However, I also use WordPress for many of my other sites where is is the most cost effective and most optimal solution. It's a case by case basis which option is best.
This thread is a low-key ad from the OP for VPS/dedicated hosting. Having worked on thousands of clients websites with a mix of shared, VPS, dedicated servers I can safely that the large majority of people are not cut out to handle website security and even less should be attempting to manage a server. 15 years ago I was keen on managing my own servers, I quickly realised that I have no interest in doing so as it's a very specialised skill which takes constant attention, learning, evolving. If I decided to manage my own servers it would put my clients at risk not being qualified to do so. I host with high quality companies who manage my servers and it's been a fantastic decision for me and my clients over the years. I've seen super fast sites hosted on shared servers and also very slow sites hosted on VPS/dedicated servers. It is not a black and white answer. The OP would like you to believe that in all cases a VPS is better than shared hosting but that is false. If you don't know what you're doing managing a VPS it will end in disaster over the long term.
Shared Hosting is currently used by 37% of websites. If you pick a good host there is nothing wrong with shared hosting and it's the most effective solution for the majority of small business websites. The argument of newsletter delivery being unreliable with a shared host is weak because there's solutions to that such as using an external email delivery service such as MailChimp. MailChimp has a trusted email network. Even if you use a dedicated server with your own IPS it's not going to out perform MailChimp when it comes to email delivery. You can also use external email while keeping your site hosted on a shared server. The majority of good shared hosts have very reliable backups implemented. The ability for users to restore their website own website from any day over x amount of days is real and exists. No need to contact the hosting provider, website restored within 5 minutes.